THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.174 OF 2017
and
CROSS OBJECTIONS No.2 OF 2018
COMMON JUDGMENT:
M.A.C.M.A.No.174 of 2017 is preferred by the New India
Assurance Company Limited, questioning the award and decree, dated
09.11.2016 made in O.P.No.346 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman,
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,
Mahabubnagar (for short, the Tribunal). Challenging the very same order
and decree, the claimants filed cross-objections No.2 of 2018 seeking
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to
as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Mandala Anjaneyulu, husband of
claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 & 3, son of claimant Nos. 4 & 5
(hereinafter referred as 'deceased') in a road accident that occurred on
12.05.2013. It is stated that on the fateful day, while the deceased was
returning from Goureddypally village on his motor cycle bearing No. AP
28 N 5614 and at about 20:30 hours, when he reached Nellykonda stage,
one harvester tractor bearing No. AP 24 AK 0643, owned by respondent
2
MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018 No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as mason and contributing the entire income for the welfare of the family. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their bread winner and love and affection. Therefore, the claimants claimed compensation of Rs.10.00 lakh against the respondents.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No. 1 filed counter stating that there is no negligence on the part of the harvester tractor and the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased and further contended that the respondent No. 2 alone is liable to pay the compensation. Per Contra, the respondent No. 2 filed counter filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and further contended that the accident occurred due to hit and run and there are no eye witness to the accident but the claimants colluded with some unscrupulous persons filed a Police case by involving the harvester tractor. He lastly contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim-petition.
3
MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018
5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the harvester tractor by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum to be paid by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.
6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that the PW.2, eyewitness has never witnessed the accident and he was planted for the purpose of this case and his name is not figured in the charge sheet. He further stated that in the said circumstances in the FIR it ought to have mentioned type of vehicle is harvester and there is no necessity to say that unknown harvester or JCB that itself shows that the insured vehicle was implicated for the purpose of this case and PW.1 colluded with the respondent No. 1 with the help of the Police and fastened a Police case. As such, the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation and prays to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.
4
MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants/ cross-objectors has contended since the deceased was aged about 30 years, the application of multiplier '16' applied by the Tribunal is erroneous. He further contends that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1 as the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is 17.
9. As regards the manner of accident occurred, the Tribunal having framed Issue No.1 as to whether the deceased died in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of harvester tractor bearing No. AP 24 AK 0643 by its driver, and considering the evidence of P.W.2, eyewitness to the accident and the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A.1, F.I.R., Ex.A.5, charge sheet and Ex.A4, M.V.I. Report, has categorically observed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the harvester tractor and has answered the issue in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, the said findings of the Tribunal are on evaluation of the evidence in proper perspective and the same need no interference by this Court in this regard. 1 2017 ACJ 2700 5 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018
10. As regards the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company in relation to the liability to pay the compensation, admittedly, the RW-1 has not initially taken the said plea in the counter that the harvester tractor was not involved in the accident. However, in the cross examination it was elicited that on the date of accident human blood was found on the blades of the harvesting tractor and he was informed by the driver about the accident. The RW.1 also stated that the Police have seized the tractor during the course of investigation and he has found some dried up blood stains on the blades of the harvesting tractor which was kept in the Police Station. Hence, it is clear that the harvesting tractor was involved in the accident and the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of harvester tractor. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is unsustainable.
11. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimants in order prove the income of deceased, filed Ex.A.7, certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Khanapur Grampanchayat which discloses the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. Though the claimants have filed Exs.A9, R.O.R; A10, Pahani and A11, pahani, the claimants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in order to prove the income of deceased. As the deceased was 30 years at the time of the accident and as the accident is of the year, 2013, the Tribunal 6 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018 has rightly fixed the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Since the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 30 years, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Therefore, the future monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). From this, 1/4th is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 as there are five dependents. After deducting 1/4th therefrom towards his personal and living expenses, the net contribution of income by the deceased to the family comes to Rs.5,250/- per month. Since the age of the deceased was 30 years, as held by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '17' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (supra). Adopting multiplier '17', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.10,71,000/- (Rs.5,250 x 12 x 17). That apart, under the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/-. In addition thereto, the claimant Nos. 2 & 3 being the minor children of the deceased, are entitled to Rs.40,000/- each under the head of parental consortium as per the decision of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.12,28,000/-. 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 3 (2018) 18 SCC 130 7 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018
12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law.
13. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another4, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh5 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
14. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration, the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
4 (2011) 10 SCC 756 5 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 8 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018
15. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, the tribunal has erroneously granted interest rate at 9% per annum instead of 7.5%. Therefore, in light of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others6 the rate of interest is hereby reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till the date of realization.
16. In the result, both the M.A.C.M.A.No.174 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company, the cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.12,28,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Time to deposit the amount is one month. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI 18.04.2023 gms 6 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 9 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018 28 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M. G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.174 OF 2017 and CROSS OBJECTIONS No.2 OF 2018 10 MGP,J MACMA No.174 of 2017 And Cross Objections No.2 of 2018 18.04.2023 gms